We saw publication at the end of last week of what is already being dubbed “McLeveson”. This Scottish response to the Leveson Report makes remarkable reading. Contained within its urbane and staid language are proposals which could lead to regulation of all bloggers and tweeters in Scotland, where they comment, to any extent, on news of any sort and “gossip” about the famous.

The suggestions could see people being hauled in front of a Regulator to answer for tweets or blog posts, even where they were simply re-tweeting something else, for example.

In addition, there are worrying cost implications. Indeed the suggestion seems to be that all “significant news publishers” may have to chip in for the costs of the Regulator. The proposed definition of “significant” does mean only the major newspapers in Scotland. No. It could be me, or you, especially if you comment here or on other sites.

And we have another example of the apparent wish of the Scottish Government to extend its reach far and wide, as detailed below.

———————————————————–

Lord McCluskey is a very distinguished personality. His long career in the law and politics makes him one of the most eminent Scots of recent times. From his service as a prosecutor and a QC, to a short time as a Sheriff Principal; from five years in the Wilson Government as Solicitor-General for Scotland to sixteen years full time on the Bench in the High Court and Court of Session; from being the first serving judge to deliver the Reith Lectures to chairing the Scottish Football Association disciplinary hearings on occasion: Lord McCluskey has seen it all and done it all.

In recent years he has become one of the “great and the good” summoned by governments who want an independent review of an issue (and there is no doubt about his independence).

In 2007 Prime Minister Gordon Brown appointed Lord McCluskey to propose, along with the Bishop of Oxford, new rules regarding political donations.

More recently First Minister Alex Salmond called upon His Lordship to chair a panel of experts considering how Scotland should interact with the Supreme Court (this being at the time when Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill seemed to want to go to war with Lord Hope).

And now Lord McCluskey has his name all over “McLeveson” – the report prepared for consideration by the Scottish Government prior to a formal decision by Holyrood on how Scotland will deal with the issues raised by the report in England prompted by the phone-hacking scandals.

It is fair to say that the reaction to McLeveson has been less than enthusiastic.

This was a high powered panel, and no mistake. The legal side was well-covered with three legally qualified members. The world of journalism was represented by Mr Sinclair and Ms Wishart, but also by Professor Watson who has acted for many media organisations over many years.

The “victims” too were represented. Mr Sinclair’s present role put him in that position and Professor Watson wore his third hat, as someone who has represented or is indeed still acting for individuals who consider they have been unfairly maligned by the media using tactics which are wrong, if not criminal. One of his prominent clients is Sir David Murray, and following the outcome of the FTT Professor Watson released a strongly worded statement on behalf of Sir David making clear that the businessman wanted to pursue vigorously the illegal, as he saw it, disclosure of his tax records.

Lord McCluskey too has never been afraid to be controversial. From suggesting, just after his retirement as a full time judge, that heroin should be legalised, as criminalisation had not worked, to his comments on Human Rights legislation, he has never been a shrinking violet.

The judge had commented as follows:-

I warned in the Reith Lectures in 1986 that the Canadian Charter – copied from the European Convention on Human Rights – would provide a field day for crackpots, a pain in the neck for judges and legislators and a goldmine for lawyers. Prophetic or what?

In relation to the 1998 Human Rights Act he said:-

Somebody suggested to me that it was a bit like sailing in the Titanic toward a legal iceberg. My own fear is that the better simile is with an avalanche; all we can hear at the moment is a distant roar, but it is coming and we are going to have to struggle to avoid being buried in new claims of right.

And he added:-

One last point about the judges in the 21st century. As a result of recent legislation by parliament, the judges have been given an entirely new jurisdiction. They can in effect overrule the elected parliament. For there has been introduced into our law a revolutionary instrument of change, a Trojan Horse. It goes by the splendidly attractive name of The European Convention on Human Rights. The new powers given to judges may require us to look again at the qualifications, experience and training required of our judges.

And he concluded:-

The consequences of the enormous changes effected by the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act will be emerging for decades to come. The legal landscape will be profoundly altered. Are we ready for it? I doubt it.

It is fair to say that Lord McCluskey was not a fan of Convention Rights!

(As a footnote, his statements above led to the successful application in a criminal appeal he was hearing for him to be excluded from the process, and for the matter to continue before a differently constituted court, as his statements seemed to suggest that, as regards the Convention, there was not the appearance of impartiality.)

So we can be sure that Lord McCluskey is not one for refraining from speaking his mind. Nor indeed are the other members of the group.

What Did The Group Propose?

The Executive Summary can itself be summarised as follows.

We have proceeded on the fundamental principle affirmed in the Leveson Report, namely that the terms and conditions of press regulation should not be prescribed by statute. Any bodies forming part of a new regulatory system must be independent of the Legislature and of Government as well as independent of the media.

We have suggested that statute would provide a basic underpinning to ensure (a) that, in future, news-related material would be regulated … by an independent, non-statutory, Regulatory Body of a character to be proposed by the press; and (b) that there would be created a separate independent body (the Recognition Body) with responsibility for ensuring that the independent Regulatory Body complies at all times with the Leveson principles and essential recommendations.

We accept, but build upon, the Leveson conclusion that the Regulatory Body must have guaranteed jurisdiction over “all significant news publishers”. The principal difference between what we advise and what others have proposed is that the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Body must extend by law to all publishers of news-related material.

No publisher of news-related material should be able to opt out of that jurisdiction.

Funding for the system should be settled by agreement between the industry and the Board of the Regulatory Body, taking into account the cost of fulfilling the obligations of the regulator and the commercial pressures on the industry.

… all important institutions in a democracy, including public institutions … and … social institutions such as charities, Churches and Trades Unions, are subject to the Rule of Law and to the particular statutory jurisdictions and restrictions enacted by the elected Legislature for each of them; yet they preserve their independence and freedom from political interference in the carrying out of their functions.

We also note that, in some democracies, including Iceland, Denmark and Ireland, subjecting the press to the limited jurisdiction of an independent, non-government regulator is compulsory or is secured by the prospect of direct legislation as the alternative.

We have little confidence that the voluntary ‘opt in or opt out’ model proposed by Leveson would work―whatever incentives were devised to encourage publishers to opt in. But if, contrary to our view, it was decided that publishers were to be allowed to opt in or out of the regulatory system it would be necessary to provide, by legislation, mechanisms similar to those suggested by Leveson.

If the London negotiations fail to produce the necessary statutory underpinning for a Leveson-compliant Regulatory Body with universal jurisdiction, then Scottish Ministers may consider introducing legislation separately to ensure that those resident in Scotland can be adequately protected from abuse of the kind that the Inquiry identified and examined. We believe that it would be possible for the Scottish Parliament to achieve that object by legislating for the regulation of news–related material circulating in Scotland by any means including electronic publishing.

What Does This Mean?

Leveson did not want to create statutory press regulation. He desired to see a Regulatory Body independent of government and of the media.

A free and independent press is vital, according to Leveson, in a democracy.

The system should also protect journalists, as well as citizens covered by the press.

The Group saw a need for a statutory Recognition Body to oversee the non-statutory Regulatory Body. Thus the Regulator itself is not acting under statute – there is therefore no legislative control of the press. But, where the regulator is to be overseen by a Recognition Body which is statutory and whose goals and rules are, one assumes, to be laid down in statute, then surely this is statutory press control, but in a less obvious way?

The Leveson proposed “opt in, opt out” system was rejected by the Group. They saw the potential for a major media group not to participate as devaluing the process. And, if there was a statutory body to oversee the Regulator, people could not simply opt to ignore the whole system without bringing it into disrepute.

Indeed, if a “significant” publisher decided to opt out, this would lead to the Regulator failing its responsibilities to the Recognition Body and ultimately to its closure!

So All The Scottish Press Will Need to Comply?

Here we see some fine legal footwork. Leveson recommended that all “significant news publishers” be covered.

The Expert Group considers this and later provides a definition of that phrase.

At para 38 it states:-

Defining to whom a jurisdiction in a statute is to apply is a common problem. … The draft DCMS ‘Royal Charter’ document referred to earlier … defines “relevant publisher” as meaning (a) a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom: a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or (b) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)”.

What is clear from the definitions contained in that DCMS document and other recent proposals is that, in principle, all and any news-related publisher may be considered significant for present purposes, since all and any may be capable of causing the very harm which Leveson is committed to addressing. We agree with that position.

At para 40 it states:-

We do not see how it can be undemocratic to compel news-related publishers to accept the jurisdiction of a Leveson-compliant scheme that they have helped to devise … The scheme cannot be Leveson-compliant “if it (the Regulatory Body) does not cover”―i.e. have jurisdiction over―“all significant news publishers”. The way to achieve that is to require all news-related material (as defined) to be subject to the same Standards Code: to repeat, it is a question of jurisdiction, not of voluntary membership of a club.

Para 41 says:-

Nearly all other pillars of democracy are subject to a substantial degree of legislative regulation without the loss of that independence that is vital. They cannot opt in or out of the jurisdictions created by the Legislature to regulate their activities in the interests of democracy. It is difficult in a democratic society in which news-related publishers enjoy extremely wide freedoms to justify exempting them from regulation, in a very limited field, by a body that meets the Leveson specification, not least in the light of the recent failings of the printed press when under a loose, voluntary system of self-regulation.

Para 42 has the Recommendation as follows:-

In summary therefore, we recommend that it is for the Legislature to specify the criteria for determining which news-related publications are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the new independent system of regulation by a Regulatory Body proposed by news-related publishers to prevent serious abuses of the kind that that Leveson has identified. It is for the Legislature to ensure that all those who might, in future, perpetrate such abuses are subject to the jurisdiction of the independent Regulatory Body.

Para 43 addresses Funding:-

While we agree with Leveson that it would be for the industry and the Regulatory Body to agree the basis of funding, there is no sensible escape from the conclusion that all who publish news-related material should be subject to the same regulatory jurisdiction. That does not necessarily mean that all who publish for example on-line news blogs must subscribe to the running costs of the regulatory system.

What Might the Legislation Say?

Helpfully a draft Bill has been attached to the Report.

For today’s purposes the most relevant parts are in clause 8. It states, in part:-

In this Act, “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in Scotland—

(a) a newspaper, magazine or periodical containing news-related material, or

(b) by electronic means (including a website), news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper, magazine or periodical).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

“broadcaster” means—

(a) the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996,

(b) the British Broadcasting Corporation,

(c) Sianel Pedwar Cymru,

“news-related material” means—

(a) news or information about current affairs,

(b) comment about matters relating to the news or current affairs,

(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.

(3) “Gossip”, for the purposes of this Act, includes assertions of fact about the private or family life of any persons mentioned in subsection (2)(c) if the information published is calumnious, defamatory or scandalous.

(4) A person publishes “in Scotland” if—

(a) the publication takes place in Scotland, or

(b) the publication is targeted primarily at an audience in Scotland.

So the draft suggests that anyone, other than a “broadcaster” as defined, who publishes “news related material” will be treated as a “significant news publisher”, no matter how small their circulation is.

Under that definition I would be treated as a “significant news publisher”. The draft legislation and the Report make it clear that any publisher is by default viewed as “significant”.

Any website, Facebook page or Twitter feed publishing news, or comment on news, or gossip, would be covered. The “publisher” would then be liable to being proceeded against under the Regulatory procedures, and a failure by the Regulator to do so could lead to action against the Regulator by the Recognition Body.

One can well imagine the reaction of motivated people if any “opposing” blogger or message board could be complained about to a Regulator!

Bearing in mind that, for example, we have seen Rangers fans seeking thousands of signatures for a petition demanding action against HMRC, one could easily see a situation where fans of one football team automatically complain about almost anything written by or on behalf of their perceived opponents. Any Regulator in such a position would undoubtedly grind to a halt almost immediately.

In addition, and of particular concern, is the suggestion that, once it is recognised that all news publishers are “significant” and require regulation, then these should all be considered for meeting the costs of the Regulator.

The draft legislation, as do the Report and Leveson previously, all recognise the vital obligations of the State under the European Convention on Human Rights to permit freedom of expression.

How does potentially levying a bill on anyone who blogs or tweets about news accord with this? Such a “Leveson Levy” would, almost certainly, be subject to a challenge. After all, under the Scotland Act, the Human Rights Act has direct effect and the Scottish government cannot legislate contrary to the ECHR principles (except in limited circumstances).

Bearing in mind Lord McCluskey’s views of the Human Rights Act, one wonders how much consideration to such an issue the Group gave. It could be very embarrassing if there was separate Scottish legislation, but that this was delayed by legal challenge for long after the English scheme was in place!

The Long Arm of the Scottish Law

One of the most remarkable pieces of the proposed legislation is contained in Clause 8(4) of the Draft Bill. It continues a recent trend of the Scottish Government extending, or seeking to extend, its powers across the globe.

I will repeat it here:-

(4) A person publishes “in Scotland” if—

(a) the publication takes place in Scotland, or

(b) the publication is targeted primarily at an audience in Scotland.

For print media this definition is workable. For electronic media it is, respectfully, not.

Helpfully the draft does not further define subclause (a). The existing law on electronic publication is unclear. On one view publication takes place where the author or publisher sits at his laptop and hits “send”. On another it is where the servers which contain the “publication” are situated. A wide interpretation, adopted especially in English libel law, is that publication effectively means being able to read the piece in a particular jurisdiction.

Therefore, on that definition, any electronic publication anywhere in the world which is capable of being accessed in Scotland would be “published” here and fall under sub-clause (a). Thus we have the complaints that the Group is recommending that the entirety of media organisations (except for broadcasters) and tweeters and Facebookers and bloggers, as long as they are commenting on news or gossip, would be required to be subject to the McLeveson regulatory procedures!

Sub-clause (b), thankfully, seems to suggest that such a wide interpretation is not what the Group intended, as long as electronic publication is being contemplated by the authors. If the wide definition of publication in sub-clause (a) is applied, then, for electronic publication, sub-clause (b) is unnecessary.

Let’s take an example. The Des Moines Register, for example, publishes print and electronic editions. The print edition is not available in Scotland. Now it would be very difficult to argue that it was targeted “primarily” at an audience in Scotland. However the website of the paper is accessible here. Does it mean that the Des Moines Register needs to meet McLeveson standards?

What about bloggers? Paul Staines of the Guido Fawkes website has made it clear that he sees no way in which his site, hosted in the USA as I understand it, and run by him, an Irish citizen, can be covered by Leveson in England. But, on the definition in the draft Bill, I think he would be covered by the tartan version. Having seen his excellent performance when giving evidence to Leveson, one would almost look forward to Mr Staines taking on the Scottish regulator.

Normally of course one would not think that Holyrood wanted to cover the whole world. However, as I have written before, the extra-territorial extent of Part 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 covers offences allegedly committed by anyone who is habitually resident in Scotland if watching a football match on TV anywhere in the world, as long as a Scottish team is involved. The possibility exists that, for example, a Scot working for a year in Tierra Del Fuego could find himself summoned to his local Sheriff Court to face a charge of Offensive Behaviour if, when watching a match between, for example, Celtic and Dukla Pumpherston on TV in a bar, he sings a song seen as “offensive”. This could be the case even if there was no one there who could be “offended”.

the mighty Rangers yous are scotlands newest club and play crap week in week out in the bottom tier the back waters whats it like to follow a set up like that it must be torture ,why is green whating a lift up ???

Nice try Sally, Dunfermline and Hearts in trouble cos the rangers are not around wi the big boys to benefit Scottish Football more…. Sally shouldn’t worry he will be reporting to Jabba next season… That will definitely benefit Scottish fitba’…

dunfermline were conned by them the dunfermline masterton charlotte18 story is well a wow a cant belive all the surrondings of it metal and banks murray and his m8 from the bank killing a other club thats what is happening there ,its rangers fault hearts are at near death via trying to keep up with the finacial doping has killed them

There you go mick,jim tells you that Rab isn’t Catholic,so why did Bomber get rid of him?
Oh yes he played for Celtic!
Now it is Rangers’ fault that Hearts are broke and you’re off on the yellow and green road to loonville.

Yes and no.
We are providing examples of why some form of control is needed in blogland.
If our opinions could reach a larger audience it would cause civil disorder.
Now if you have something pertinent to the discussion to add then fire away,i’m still trying to drive these lemmings off the cliff.

Bob the builder ain’t no caflik…. For me Brown’s style of most things inc management is crude at best. The Dundee fans don’t want him there, he will be lucky to see the season out at Dens and there won’t be many queuing up with job offers for him…His brute force style over any talent will always limit him. His let him know who the boss was statement shows a lack of maturity imo.

jim thats the best word a have heard surrounding bomber brutal lol hes a nut nut hes probably a nice guy but his nasty way of doing things via hard tackles is not on in modern sport a wonder who taught him that walter lol
the dundee darbys have been good for the area so they had some good days they were not ready for spl due to short notice call up so no 1 is faulting them and the whole spl wish them well it was nice to see rab a few weeks back at celtic park done some great saves hopw it works out well for him bomber would be better giving football a by and taking being a bouncer he has the aggression for it lol

TITLE PARTY: Guest of honour,Craig Whyte walks out the tunnel at Paradise with a bowl of Ice cream & Jelly…Jim Whyte ( sky sports news) ” Craig you got a standing ovation from 60,000 Celtic supporters there,would you like to say anything to these wonderful fans” Craig- ” it’s been emotional,it’s been difficuilt,it’s been extraordinary, however it’s been the best £1 I have spent in my life. I hope you enjoyed my efforts, Agent whyte- out” Jim ” Craig will you do the honours ( Craig picks up SPL trophy & hands it to Broony)” 5,4,3,2,1 Craig- “I would just like to say this before the party gets into full swing, Graffiti on the wall it says we’re magic,we’re magic,Graffiti on the wall”…….

Bomber used to live a stones throw from my gaff and it can be a brutal area trust me 🙂

On the reconstruction piece I think it’s the sideshow to show the three amigos are doing something positive and constructive to the betterment of the game in Scotland, but pretty much to deflect how they handled the rangers thing and the fact that no fans like them at all. They totally misjudged that whole sorry affair and the mood of the fans… Living on borrowed time in their present overpaid position… They are also fukin up the reconstruction ideas, which should see them get the boot.

following on from older comments cam mentioned a said big rabthe great wall of dundee was RC a never were did i state that prove it bomber would want him out for being celtic thats what a said its in his genetic make up a never metioned faith a dont no peoples faiths and its not a thing a pick up on when comunicating

Mick, I replied to you earlier about the youngsters at the protest meeting. It would appear that the moderator has grabbed it. Don’t know why! Must have a funny word in it, because its a perfectly sound posting.
I see Stranraer have joined Alloa in shooting Chicco down in flames. Even Cams red white and blue spitfire, cannot save him from the Ack Ack, when he flies at tree-top altitudes!
It must be a right big riddy for the biggest team in the world, getting ripped a new one, by the diddy teams.

hi barca a think the youngsters feel able to cope with rally they are self governed and well disiplined lads as provan on saturday under pressure to retaliate they showed good character and held back from law breaking a think this is the main reason the other fans are taking up there case there was no secterian chants either on saturday so the celtic fans have seen how mature the young lads are if it was any other way it would have been impossible for the other groups to deal with so 10 out of 10 to the gb lads for keeping cool

well barca flicking throw the celtic sites there is teams from all over going men women and children of all teams even rfc fans via celtic family althought its a celtic rally every club is welcome if we could have a joint effort via all fans then they have to listen

Ah yes mick,i see my mistake.When you say that someone has a timmy name you mean a Celtic name,like David Kerrydale,or Robert Parkhead,Albert Paradise and that Brown is bigoted against just Celtic,,,thanks for clearing that up.
Ok,he goes up to Dundee for his first paying job in ages and decides to get rid of the goalie just because he played for Celtic,until those lovely fans hounded him out and blamed him for Seville.
So the bhoys Toshney and Conroy will be next then?
Yes and the Green Brigade are smiley,happy, flower in the hair hippies,spreading the gospel of peace and tolerance and brotherly love.
I’m a helicopter in another life.
weeeeeeeeeehttp://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-fc/dundee-derby-john-brown-says-injury-forced-him-to-drop-legend-rab-douglas-1.76930

The link is what is known as reality,,,it is a state of mind mick,some folk inhabit their own because it makes things fit their brainwashed outlook.
i don’t do reality,,,i’m a helicopter,,,,weeeeeeee

Well that’s an interesting psychological barrier breached today with the Rangers shares falling below the AIM launch price of 76p for the first time.

They shares have fallen steadily since the beginning of January when they were at their highest value of 94p.

To put it in perspective this would mean that Chuckles is down approx £1 million on his 5+ million shares since the beginning of January. Ok they only cost him 1p each so he would still pick-up £3.75 million at the present 75p price but you know what they say – that first million is the deepest cut 🙂

Think of the poor sods who paid 100p a share – they’re now down 25p a share.

ecojon
Yes it is interesting that in the early days of the listing we would get regular share price/movement updates from the Rangers side. Now they have gone quiet as the price declines and the disposals increase.
One wonders what the price will be when Charles checks out when the lock-in year ends. I would love to see the quick-buck merchant get his fingers burnt.
Thanks for posting the share updates.

BREAKING NEWS ! Lieweell has just announced that the tainted title party will be a ” bring TWO FIENDS for free day ” and they hope to top the 30k record of the season attendance !……. but liewell has said ” we expect the 2.5 million ( and counting ) people who were in Seville to be in bairds bar for a buffet to head to the ” stadium ” after the game for a couple of glasses of frosty jack , Strathclyde police have Said ” we will give the match our full attention and will have a panda car in location along with three community support officers , two hundred and fifty six drug and alcohol support workers , three hundred and seven nit nurses , Glasgow city councils entire delousing department and Michele McManus supported by subo to keep the ” sellout ” crowd entertained .

Tainted?? Sevco have no licence,no audited accounts & the second largest wage bill,far in excess of other third division clubs,(sporting advantage)when Sevco win their first ever title,that is what I call tainted!!!!

Sensational news ! Michele McManus and subo are having a square go because subo has taken the nip because she said ” McManus should support ME at the ” sellout ” tainted title party ! How often do you get to play in front of 97 thousand people ?

But you do tell stories, dont you Monti?
You claimed to reside in the Falklands-LIE
You claimed to vote in their referendum-LIE
You claimed to be respected there-LIE
You claimed to live in the Falls Road-LIE

@Mick the green brigade stuff… Honestly i know nothing good or bad on these guys, i hear great coordination and songs at parkhead, that is my ONLY interaction… I read earlier in the season rangers fans being quizzed, searched etc for a section of the ground by the polis, basically harassed.. I thing the GB guys are seeing the same treatment albeit the weekend prolly cost us all several hundred grand, fukin shockin… I posted here a while back an Irish march from wishaw for 2 miles 75 people, polis, dogs and helicopters cost £250k about 12 yrs ago..

That £250k could put up a 3G park for football.. All marching and protests should be banned and 20 parks a year built in their stead…

I want to set up a march for the parks fund, we dont take a step forward just give us the policing costs to build a park for fitba’ Boys fitba rocks…!!!!

I find it soooo weird why P Lawell is a hate figure for the rangers…. Cant remember Lawell’s last post/comments and the gers on this site tell me old sticklebricks (with his lawell agenda) is ignored by the real fans but I constantly see lawell in conversations in this post, he apparently runs Scottish football and the main media…. fekin awesome go Pedro..!!!

I was embarassed years ago as the celts were paranoid (but with good examples now) that mantle has definitely shifted…

To the credit of Jim Delahunt on SSB; he had the balls to admit that if league restructure had happened in time for the start of this season; there would be absolutely no controversy over last season’s promoted clubs (Alloa and Stranraer) being admitted into a third tier of 18 teams.

The teams immediately below TRFC in contention for this season’s Division 3 runners up (Queen’s Park and Berwick) have not made any complaint regards entry to a new league set up.

The entire argument from Charles Green regards entry to a new second tier is proved to be completely flawed.

TRFC supporters are united in their stance with regard to the long haul back to the top tier whatever the new league set up may be.

The minimum period to return to the top is not altered by the proposed league reconstruction; so why all the fuss?
Is it simply the case that Charles Green is pushing his luck yet again; by his attempt to leapfrog an entire season back to the top?

The obvious concern demonstrated from within Ibrox regards the length of journey back to the top tier should be setting off alarm bells to one and all connected to the club.

The extent of squeals of protest from certain radio phone in guests regards the proposed league set up; is surely a sign that all does not augur well for TRFC.
As far as I’m concerned, the day TRFC make it back to the top tier; will be a day too soon.

With talk of further boycott; TRFC supporters promise they will “not forget” their detractors; while expecting the sport to implode due to their absence from the top tier; should anyone out with Ibrox really wish to welcome an unrepentant ‘prodigal son’?

————————————————————————

Boycott

Word History: Charles C. Boycott seems to have become a household word because of his strong sense of duty to his employer. An Englishman and former British soldier, Boycott was the estate agent of the Earl of Erne in County Mayo, Ireland. The earl was one of the absentee landowners who as a group held most of the land in Ireland.

Boycott was chosen in the fall of 1880 to be the test case for a new policy advocated by Charles Parnell, an Irish politician who wanted land reform. Any landlord who would not charge lower rents or any tenant who took over the farm of an evicted tenant would be given the complete cold shoulder by Parnell’s supporters.

Boycott refused to charge lower rents and ejected his tenants. At this point members of Parnell’s Irish Land League stepped in, and Boycott and his family found themselves isolated without servants, farmhands, service in stores, or mail delivery. Boycott’s name was quickly adopted as the term for this treatment, not just in English but in other languages such as French, Dutch, German, and Russian.

I see McMurdo Jnr is now onto a new mantra of Scotland being a “bitterly divided nation”. So I’m off to work now but I better take my Kalashnikov – if we are like Kosovo then I better be prepared to defend myself.
Oh and Bill Jnr – stop talking shite and pandering to your barely literate audience – it’s the guy who quotes the bible and refers to the “Rangers Haters” as cockroaches that worries me. It worries me that this guy seems to have children and I’m sure the hateful indoctrination is going super well. Peace and Love folks.

Mmmm,,don’t know.if leggo’s Pullitzer exclusive is in any way accurate and that the dafties attempted march was a set up,then it does look well defo dodgy as mick would say.
If these wonderful specimens of humanity had just had a pint in one of the Barras theme bars and then marched along the road doing their “thing”nobody would have noticed.
Attention seekers the lot of them,the pictures don’t show wee innocent 14yr old kids,but they certainly acted like weans.
Illegal march properly supervised by the police and if some lawyers were indeed on hand to keep an eye on proceedings then things look crook, to use another fav.word in here

I’m a moderate kinda guy, who is moderately annoyed at the moderator moderating my already moderate post. As a moderate kinda guy, I have allowed the moderator, a more than moderate period of time, to release my moderate post, from within the bowels of moderation, which is not an immoderate expectation.
Surely, it is not beyond reason, for the moderator to exercise some moderation, and moderate his moderation of moderate posts.
Or has the moderator been got at by McLeveson?

Looks like the share price may have reached a crucial point. Down again this morning and notable that most of the transactions are in blocks of 5000 – looks like a bigger shareholder might be trying to cash out – but there;’s not enough liquidity to support the price.

As you say with such a sluggish share, Chico could pump up the price by buying 100K – but as soon as he came to sell his 100K the price would droop rapidly unless there were enough buyers who expect the share to rise in future. His problem is that he has far more to sell than 100K. So, the chances of selling to enthusiastic buyers anywhere near 75p is remote. But having paid only 1p each – he’s unlikely to lose money – just not make nearly as much as his big hands had hoped for. Also, as CEO his shares sales will be reported, so crashing the share price to get out quickly will not endear him to the unforgiving.

Since you bring up the topic of “adjusting” the share price. One of the big factors is news – good or bad. One might say that the Puma, BlackThorn, Sports Direct news items were all good – putting upward pressure on the share price – but it didn’t move up. Many experienced hands took the lack of disclosed values to mean the deals were poor and so the details would put downward pressure on the share price. Charles may have thought the warm feeling of doing deals was better for the masses than the uncomfortable facts. As Dennis Thatcher famously said “Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt”

Bhoys & Ghirls: I’m turning the page on all this digging the Huns,I mean Sevconian,I mean Zombie bashing,they are people ( in limbo granted,undead & walking among us). I mean how would we feel if our club died like theirs did,I mean the Arsenal shares, the trophies,the medals, all gone for £1, starting again with the clock turned to zero, no trophies,no titles,no accounts,no bank credit,no shame & begging to be allowed back in the big boys playground,I would be gutted. I mean how embarrassing is it to be publicly flogged by Stranrear & Alloa? I would be ashamed of that,everybody knowing you cheated them out of prize money & not paying tax like everybody else, needing the help of their pals in high places to get through in life? what a wee shame for them knowing Celtic won the first & last ever Old firm games, they never got their thumbs on a European cup,or set a world record for a domestic cup final ( 7-1), they never gained a worldwide reputation for sporting fairness & ambassadors for the country,earning respect throughout Europe(Seville),it wasn’t all bad though,they gained a reputation for discriminating against Catholics,rampaging across Europe like a scene from 28 weeks later, worldwide coverage of assaulting the police & Citizens of Manchester going about their business, maybe it west ham or Chelsea ( again)! Celtic you are among the Barcelonas,Manchester utds,Real married & Milan clubs in your standing on the game,just remember buoys,when we are getting ready to compete in the Champions League to a worldwide audience,Sevco will be trying to rent their training ground out. ……SIMPSON
. CRAIG
. GEMMELL
. MCNEILL
. CLARK
. MURDOCH
. AULD
. LENNOX
. JOHNSTONE
. WALLACE
. CHALMERS. Led by JOCK STEIN!!! Rangers (IL) your club died on this day….25th May 1967! It wasn’t nice knowing you…….bye bye!

The ‘experiment’ is already showing signs of improvement in relation to domestic violence in Scotland. If anything can be learned from this mock trial of sporting integrity; it is surely that in life; nothing is guaranteed.

That should not deter people to strive for improvement to their lot with each passing year (we are impelled by nature).

Most of us are only spectators, the wheels keep turning; “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” …?

BTW, growing your hair for peace doesn’t work.

Both Celtic & Rangers are of a bygone age; they each need to shift their arse into the 21st century.

I would take the view; if that the present model of Scottish football is used as a vehicle for political or religious activists then the ball is well and truly burst.

This is where even handed policing of each club becomes essential.

In any event; if it was up to me; I would throw the baby oot with the bath water; spit the dummy; toys oot the pram; the whole fecking lot.

I don’t miss the OF games at all,usually frantic kick and rush fitba,no skill and it is all about the hatred.
Thats why Sky paid big bucks to screen it.
Get the northern maniacs on early on a Sunday,get a good laugh at them and then settle down to watch ArsenalvChelsea.
Now they have to decide whether to pay little bucks to screen CelticvSt Johnstone in a half empty stadium.
In a year or so even the really obsessed obsessives will get fed up with trying to bait a team that can’t threaten them and for these nutters 50% of the reason for going to the fitba will be gone.
Now lets get the Masters golf on and then the tennis.

Been having a wee gander now and then at the RTC site and it is funny to see the old familiars in there from 2 years ago.
That sure is a lot of obsessing and i salute the indefatigability of those poor folk who followed the hunted ones banner, only to get a swift kick in the goolies at the end.Meanwhile the banner carrier was off in a taxi.
It is a heavy process reading through post after post of mind numbing guff, and i feel sorry for the chaps who may have to sift through this in any possible police investigation into RFC’s tax affairs.
The electronic trail between the obsessive’s sites would be quite fun to watch and i wonder who would be the most prolific obsessive.

James obviously believes the old adage that there is no such thing as bad press. Well James, there is – see below. You’ve just advertised the incompetence of your club and your PR machine to the world.

Charles, how much are you paying this numpty to destroy your brand value and make a fool of TRFC worldwide. I’ll do it for 80% of that – and his pie allowance – or Ally’s whichever is larger.

cam c the rangers francis is off duty this weekend unlike the vat city centre forward of the same name.

bit off dont ye think, feel the oblig two week fine comin on at least, as chico trousers another 9k min. what a deal this is eventually, 10k a week in the spl fur a 33yo cent forward,.note these immortal words again ” ally sat down with the player”………

Putting scotland in the hamds of alex salmind and the SNP would be like deliverin a bus full of children to jimmy saville then to joesphfritzls house after for a sleep over. Scotland is slowly turning into 100% police state and that fuking fat plum as the dictator. He should be the fuking poster boy for obesity and incest to show what happens when your mother has kids with her youger brother